Download - Why we need DCD - Lifesharing · Why we need DCD Randolph Schaffer ... • History of DCD • Early hopes • Clinical outcomes ... compared to organs from DBD • DCD should be an

Why we need DCD Randolph Schaffer, MD

Scripps Center for Organ Transplant March 5, 2015

No Disclosures

Why we need DCD

• History of DCD

• Early hopes

• Clinical outcomes

• Risks of overuse

• Ethical issues

History of Organ Donation in the US

• 1954 – First successful US transplantation – Kidney from identical twin living donor

• 1962 – First successful deceased donor kidney transplant – Early immunosuppressive therapy era

• 1978 – Discovery of cyclosporine

History of Organ Donation in the US

• Early era: – Living donation – Donation following declaration of death based on

irreversible cessation of circulatory and respiratory function

i.e. the options were living donor and DCD – 1960s: Improved ICU care (mechanical ventilation/

medical support) – Need for better criteria for determining death

Transplantation Legislation

• 1968 Uniform Anatomical Gift Act (UAGA) • Uniform legal environment for donation across the US • Gave adults the right to donate their bodies/organs

upon their death “without subsequent veto by others.”

• 1981 Uniform Determination of Death Act • Codified existing common laws for determining death • “An individual who has sustained either irreversible

cessation of circulatory and respiratory functions, or irreversible cessation of all functions of the brain, including the brain stem is dead.”

Transplantation Legislation

• 1984 National Organ Transplant Act (NOTA) • Established the OPTN (data reporting began in 1988) • Expanded the OPO system • Prohibited commercial transactions in organs

• 1987 Amended UAGA • Provided explicit priority to the intention of donors

over that of their relatives • Prohibited the sale of body organs • Included required request provisions

Brain Death

• 1981 Uniform Determination of Death Act • “An individual who has sustained either irreversible

cessation of circulatory and respiratory functions, or irreversible cessation of all functions of the brain, including the brain stem is dead.”

• Use of neurologic criteria for determination of brain death has gained wide medical legal, ethical and public acceptance in the US.

Pivotal time in organ transplantation

• 1950-70s – Limited immunosuppressive therapy options

(steroids/azathioprine) – “DCD” donors

• 1978-81

– Cyclosporine – UDDA: Brain Death soon becomes foundation for

organ donation and benchmark for deceased donor transplant outcomes

“Narrowing the Gap”

• 2006 Institute of Medicine – Committee on Increasing

Rates of Donation – Multifaceted approach

• Systems support, consent, facilitating donation decisions, presumed consent, incentives, living donation

– “Expanding the population of potential deceased donors”

IOM Reports on DCD • 1997, 2000, 2006

• “emphasized the importance of developing the

nation’s capabilities for donation after circulatory determination of death (DCDD*)… as there is an opportunity to significantly expand the number of organ donors”

• “One set of conservative estimates suggests that at least 22,000 of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest deaths annually in the [US] could be potential donors if important ethical and practical matters could be resolved”

Terminology

• DCDD – Donation after circulatory determination of death

• NHBD – “Non-heart-beating” donor

• DCD – Donation after cardiac death – Donation after circulatory death

• DNDD / DBD – Donation after neurologic determination of death – Donation after brain death

Terminology

• Maastricht Classification of DCD donors

III - Patients in the ICU with non-survivable conditions who wish to donate after life-sustaining treatment is withdrawn Increasing uncontrolled (I, II, V) donors has proved to be more challenging

Controlled DCD

• Expected withdrawal of care • Allows family time to psychologically prepare • Allows for determination of donation

potential – Potential organ(s) and potential recipient(s) – Appropriate procurement team(s)

• Facilitates procurement process – Minimizes ischemic time to organs

Recommendations from IOM

• All OPOs and hospitals should have DCD protocols in place

• DCD should be considered part of the continuum of quality end-of-life care

• Openness and public education regarding DCD to ensure public trust

• Adherence to ethical principles

Ethical Principles of DCD

• Organ donors must be dead at time of organ removal – Determination of death after circulation permanently

(irreversibly) lost • 1997/2001: 5 minute wait to ensure no auto-resuscitation • 2006: “At least 2 minutes of observation is required, and more

than 5 minutes is not recommended.”

• Active euthanasia is absolutely prohibited • Complete openness about policies and protocols • Informed consent • Respect for donor’s and family’s wishes • Enhancing rates of organ donation is of value to society • Safeguards against conflict of interest

Ensuring Success from Donation

DBD • After neurologic

determination of death: – Artificial cardiopulmonary

support continues – Maintains normal circulation

of oxygenated blood to preserve organ viability

– Maximizes utilization of organs from the donor

DCD • After circulatory

determination of death: – Lack of blood flow and

oxygenation leads to tissue ischemia / damage

– Measures to ensure organ viability must be implemented as rapidly as possible

– Duration of tolerable ischemia varies by organ

• Kidney / Lung • Pancreas • Liver • Heart

Ensuring Success from Donation

• Every protocol / maneuver to enhance the DCD process and every intervention to the organ after procurement represents an effort to minimize ischemic time and enhance organ viability (and approximate DBD donation success)

• Better definition of when organ ischemia begins

• Better definition of graft function after DCD

Maneuvers to Enhance Outcomes

• Anticoagulants / thrombolytics (heparin / TPA) • Organ perfusion solutions • Organ perfusion / surgical techniques • Re-intubation after death (lungs) • ECMO • Pulsatile organ perfusion after recovery • Minimizing cold ischemic time of organ • Proper recipient selection

– Distance, appropriate for risk, anatomy, etc.

Defining Success with DCD

• Increase number of organs transplanted?

– Should be additive (i.e. “expand the pool”)

• Maintain patient and graft survival rates?

– Compared to organs from DBD

– Compared to not getting transplanted



– Should be additive

• Maintain patient and graft survival rates?

– Compared to organs from DBD

– Compared to not getting transplanted

DCD Kidney Transplantation

DCD Liver Transplantation • Older recipients • More HCC • Lower MELD • More complicated

intraoperative course after reperfusion

• Higher costs • Longer ICU stay • Longer hospital stay • More post-txp renal

injury • “High Risk” grafts

DCD Liver Transplantation

• Seven UK transplant centers • Recipients of DCD livers have 2x risk of graft

loss and death at 3 years • Results varied across centers


• 14% DCD • Versus no transplant?


• Modelling study – MELD <15 and HCC: greater cost and reduced

effectiveness – MELD 15-20: improved effectiveness but at increased

cost per year of benefit (QALY) – MELD >20: improved effectiveness with less cost/QALY

Potential long-term costs of DCD

• Ischemic cholangiopathy in recipients

• “Lesser graft function” but with low MELD

• Poor quality of life

• No avenue for expedited re-transplantation

• Consequences of regulatory oversight



– Should be additive

• Maintain patient and graft survival rates? – Compared to organs from DBD

– Inferior to equal results

– Compared to not getting transplanted – Better than no transplant in selected populations



– Should be additive (i.e. “expanding the pool”)

• Maintain patient and graft survival rates? – Compared to organs from DBD

– Inferior to equal

– Compared to not getting transplanted – Better than no transplant in selected populations

• The Netherlands experienced over 5 years • a 21% decrease in DBD (159 to 126; -33) • a 129% increase in DCD (41 to 94; +53)

• Not experienced across the US as a whole, but perhaps within certain OPOs—initiating DCD protocols, local/regional healthcare biases

• Number of donors v. Number of organs recovered v. Number of organs/donor

Number of Organs Recovered/Donor *Lifesharing

Pressures to Utilize DCD

• Need for more organs

• Mandated benchmark of 10% DCD donors

• Healthcare economics

Case 1

• 27 year old male, GSW to the head 1 hour ago – Non-survivable injury per Neurosurgery – Hemodynamically stable in ED – Does not currently meet brain death criteria – ICU near capacity

• What do you do? – Recommend early withdrawal of care 2o futility – Transfer to ICU to see if progresses to brain death

Conclusions (from the perspective of a transplant surgeon)

• Both DCD and DBD should be viewed as part of the continuum of end-of-life care

• The DCD organ supply is critical to addressing the ever-growing organ need

• DCD organs may bring added challenges compared to organs from DBD

• DCD should be an alternate pathway for donors who will not reach brain death, not an expedited means of getting to donation

Thank you Questions?

Download - Why we need DCD - Lifesharing · Why we need DCD Randolph Schaffer ... • History of DCD • Early hopes • Clinical outcomes ... compared to organs from DBD • DCD should be an

Top Related